Our "Federal" Union, Must It Be Preserved?

James Henry Cox

2010-04-17T09:24:00.003-05:00

In this installment of the Virginia delegates to the Secession Convention of 1861, I hope to shine a little light on James Henry Cox of Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Cox was born in Chesterfield County in 1810 and died at his home, Clover Hill, in 1877. He attended Hampden Sidney College where he graduated with distinction and studied law. After serving as President of the Academy of Tallahassee for three years, he returned to Chesterfield.

He served in the House of Delegates of the General Assembly of Virginia and then in the Commonwealth's Senate. He represented Chesterfield in the 1850 Constitutional Convention. He was made a judge for Chesterfield County prior to the war.

Cox's record as (Democratic) State Senator in the 1840s is illustrative of his feelings of national political events. In 1843, he concurred with a resolution in the Virginia State Senate which "instructed" Virginia's U.S. Senators "to procure the repeal of the Tariff, passed at the last Session of Congress, and to oppose and vote against any Tariff which is not solely for Revenue." He opposed distribution of proceeds from public lands "among the several States of this Union." He was also opposed to any Bank of the United States and wished to repeal "the Bankrupt Law." (See here)

In 1852, the Democrats had a five day convention in Baltimore. It is no surprise that Cox would go as the party platform that year spoke much to his politics. For two days the delegates of the respective Northern and Southern states clung tenaciously to their candidate of choice. Upon the 35th ballot on the 5th of June, the Virginia delegation, led by James Barbour, finally moved their 15 votes from James Buchanan of Pennsylvania to Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. While a few more states joined Virginia in the next several ballots, it was not until 49th ballot that Pierce carried the delegation with 283 votes. In the two ballots for Vice President, the Virginians supported William R. King of Alabama.

Cox was an extremely wealthy man in the antebellum period, much of that wealth built upon his slave holdings. In 1850, he had 20 slaves. A decade later, he had 47 slaves, his real estate was valued at $25,000 and his personal estate at $124,800.

Thus it comes as little surprise from his years in the political culture of the antebellum period, in 1861 he represented Chesterfield County at the Secession Convention in Richmond. Cox voted for secession on April 17, 1861.

Virginia Politicians Rally in 1861 versus 2010 Hazy Memory

2010-04-15T17:30:00.006-05:00

Photograph of R.M.T. Hunter taken by Matthew R. Brady from the Daguerreotype Collection of the Library of Congress, call number DAG no. 114.

In light of the political and media spectacle surrounding Virginia's Governor Bob McDonnell's declaration of Virginia as Confederate History Month (April 2010) and Mississippi's Governor Haley Barbour's comment that the dispute "doesn't amount to diddly" and this on-going conversation from some that slavery had no major role in the Civil War, I thought I would contribute to our political blog here by focusing on some of Virginia's political leaders on the eve of the Civil War. What were they saying about the approaching conflict and the election of 1860? The Republican Party?

In this post (a few more to be forthcoming), I will focus on Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter.

Hunter was born April 21, 1809 and died July 18, 1887. His early political career and indeed the terms of his service can be found here. But that only gives us terms in office, not what he was thinking and on which issues he acted upon. I think it is critical however to understand Hunter's lifestyle in Essex County, Virginia.

In 1840, while Hunter served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, he had 87 enslaved men, women, and children on his Fonthill estate in Essex County. The next decade, he had more than 100. By 1860, he had 116. The 1860 census illustrates that this slaveholding allowed him economic power as he had real estate valued at $80,890 and personal estate (which included all those people) at $92,800. Making him one of the wealthiest people in the county and certainly the one with the most political power. By 1860, Robert Hunter was a U.S. Senator in the important Finance Committee.

Hunter's letters illustrate that the fully intended for the South to continue to perpetuate slavery and as his home state was had the largest number of enslaved people living within its boundaries he saw its necessity to slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike.

On the subject of territorial expansion, Senator Hunter wrote to Shelton F. Leake about 1857 that the Federal Government could not privilege one group of citizens over another as the Supreme Court had ruled that the territories were also a part of the United States. He explained further, the government "cannot say that the free states may settle and colonize vacant territory the common property of all whilst the slave holding states are to be debarred from the same privilege." The thought that white slaveholding citizens could move to free territory, he found to be a foolish thought "because it involves the breaking of what, in some sense, may be called family ties." In an authoritative tone he wrote "To deny to the slave-holding States equal rights in these respects is to disturb the equality of the States in a most vital point." (Charles Henry Ambler, ed., Annual Report to the American Historical Association for the Year 1916 in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M.T. Hunter, 1826-1876, 1916, 256-261. Note: All further Hunter correspondence comes from this book and pagination will be noted only.)

Upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, Hunter wrote a long, articulate (even though morally repulsive) treatise as to why secession is legal and why he was angered by the forthcoming 16th President. He wrote that:

"For the first time since the Union was formed we have seen a President of the United States nominated and elected, so far as the popular voice is concerned, by a sectional party, a party founded in hostility to the institution of African slavery, which exists in nearly half the States in the Union, and composed of members, all of whom believe it to be their duty to war upon the institution whenever a legal opportunity is afforded them; the difference being that some of them profess a respect for the restraints of the Constitution, as they construe it, whilst others openly avow a contempt for all such restraints in regard to the subject of slavery(R.M.T. Hunter to James R. Micotj, Thomas Croxton, and Others, December 10, 1860, 338)."

Hunter explained that Northern states had nullified the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and recently hardened in 1850 and therefore ignored the U.S. Constitution which bound people to return property (for which human beings were classified). Senator Hunter was outraged that following John Brown's 1859 raid the Northern states failed to enact laws to prevent such an event from happening again. Furthermore he was angered by the election of Massachusetts governor, John Albion Andrew (338).

Andrew who was a member of the Whig Party, then Free Soil Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery (and the above letter to Leake illustrates Hunter saw it legally acceptable for slavery to move into the territories), and with the breaking apart of the Free Soilers in the early 1850s, Andrew became a Republican. In fact, Andrew even organized funding for John Brown's legal defense (and during the forthcoming war, helped to jump start the organization of armed black men into military regiments).

Slaveholders typically saw the irony of defending slavery in a region where most people indeed were non-slaveholders (a tactic used in the 21st century to maintain that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War). Senator Hunter however found reasons why non-slaveholders needed to be concerned about the (Southern perceived) Republican party's intentions to weaken white supremacy. He said that:

"...the slave population operates as a safety-valve to protect the white laborer against an unreasonable or ruinous decline in the rate of wages. The law of profit moves him to a theater where he will earn more for his master, and yet more for himself, whilst the labor market which he leaves is thus gradually relieved from the pressure, and the white man remains in the land of his birth, to enjoy the profits of remunerating operations. As a proof of the truth of this view, I ask if the average rate of wages of the white laborer of the South is not higher than in any other settled portion of the globe (346-347)?"

Senator Hunter saw Virginia's economic picture as rising with the rapid growth of railroads over the last two decades but especially in the 1850s. He therefore thought the Northerners were "mad" as they engaged "in their insane war upon slavery." Hunter saw Virginia's economic prosperity not with the North but with the South and growing Southwest (347).

What I see is that it is needless to say that on March 28, 1861, Hunter left the United States Senate after a long career which stretched almost 15 years in the Senate and almost 25 years in the Federal legislature (combining his years are a Representative and as a Senator). It comes as no surprise that Hunter served as the Confederate Secretary of State from July 25, 1861 to February 22, 1862. He spent the remainder of the war as the leading Confederate Senator for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sounds like new Seward book lacks analysis

2010-04-09T09:08:00.005-05:00

This is not an official review as I have not read it but in browsing the Civil War News book reviews for February/March 2010, John Deepen finds that Lawrence M. Denton's William Henry Seward and the Secession Crisis--The Effort to Prevent Civil War (2009) lacks critical analysis of antebellum Senator and wartime Secretary of State, William Seward. Deepen finds that Denton is apt to praise Seward without attention to his actions. Furthermore, Denton suggests that if Seward had been elected president the war period would have been a different ballgame with Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and James Ewell Brown (J.E.B.) Stuart fighting within the United States military.

Again, I am not reviewing or passing complete judgement off on this text as I have not read it in its entirety. However, I find it difficult to imagine Seward would have found many Southerners in an alliance with him. His antebellum activities had divided Southern politicians from him and thus I cannot imagine very many Southerners believing the more radical Seward would make a better president than Abraham Lincoln.

John Randolph of Roanoke

2010-04-08T19:29:00.005-05:00

On this day in 1827, two great titans of democracy literally came to blows. Senator John Randolph of Roanoke (pictured at right at the age of thirty) questioned the circumstances by which the new Secretary of State, Henry Clay, came to hold office. At the close of one of his eccentric speeches on the Senate floor, Randolph denounced the relationship between the president and secretary as "the coalition of Blifil and Black George, - of the puritan and blackleg." However, Clay was not able to shake this degrading remark as he normally could by responding oratorically on the floor of Congress as he could in the past. He concluded the only way to settle the affront to his personal honor was to send Randolph a challenge, which was accepted. The Virginia senator stated, "I have no explanations to give. I will not give any. I am called to the field. I have agreed to go, an am ready to go." According to General James Hamilton of South Carolina, Randolph sent for him on the night of April 7. Hamilton recalled that he found Randolph "calm, but in a singularly kind an confiding mood. He told me that he had something on his mind to tell me. He then remarked, 'Hamilton, I have determined to receive, without returning, CLAY's fire; nothing shall induce me to harm a hair of his head; I will not make his wife a widow, or his children orphans. Their tears would be shed over his grave; but when the sold of Virginia rests on my bosom, there is not, in this wide world, one individual to pay this tribute upon mine."

The two men met the next day, April 8 at 4:30 p.m., across the Potomac River in Virginia. Before the word was given to fire, Randolph's pistol supposedly discharged prematurely. General Jesup, a friend of Clay, exclaimed that if this occurred again the secretary would immediately leave the field. Clay retorted that the "gentleman might be allowed to go on." Once the Virginian's pistol was reloaded and ready, the word was given. Clay fired without hitting the senator, and Randolph fired his pistol harmlessly into the air. The two men left the field uninjured, and although not becoming best of friends, they did resume some cordial relations. In fact, before he died, Randolph travelled to the Senate Chamber to hear that magnificent voice of Clay's one last time.

2010-03-28T15:03:00.003-05:00

The 1824 “American System” speech by Speaker Henry Clay of Kentucky**

March 30, 1824 – March 31, 1824

On this date, Speaker Henry Clay of Kentucky addressed the House from the well to support targeted protective tariffs and to proclaim his ideal of an “American system” of national development that would benefit all sections of the United States. Clay’s speech distilled his long evolving belief in tariffs to protect fledgling American industry—one component of the American system that sought to promote federally-funded internal improvements and to institute a strong national bank. The speech befitted the reputation of a man widely accepted as one of Congress’ greatest orators. Armed with visual charts, Clay delivered an address that filled two legislative days and more than 40 pages of print in the Annals of Congress. “The object of the bill under consideration is to create this home market, and to lay the foundations of a genuine American policy,” Clay began. He then addressed 10 main objections to weak tariff provisions. “Are we doomed to behold our industry languish and decay yet more and more?” Clay intoned. “But there is a remedy, and that remedy consists in modifying our foreign policy, and in adopting a genuine AMERICAN SYSTEM. We must naturalize the arts in our country, and we must naturalize them by the only means which the wisdom of nations has yet discovered to be effectual—by adequate protection against the otherwise overwhelming influence of foreigners.” The speech garnered national accolades. The Tariff of 1824 passed the House by a narrow margin—with support from the northwest and Middle Atlantic and strong opposition from the South. It carried the Senate narrowly and was signed into law in May 1824.

**Taken from the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives

Ashland: The Home of the Great Pacificator

2010-03-23T13:50:00.005-05:00

(To see the video in full screen mode, please click on the four directional arrows in the lower right hand corner)

In light of the new book concerning the Compromise of 1850 and Henry Clay, I thought this quick video introducing the historic house and grounds of the Great Compromiser would be appropriate! Unfortunately, the home we are able to visit today is not the same as the honorable gentleman from Kentucky built. The original was raised in the late 1850s and rebuilt by his son. I hope you enjoy Lextreks tour of Ashland.

At the Edge of the Precipice

2010-03-10T19:11:00.003-06:00

In 1850, America hovered on the brink of disunion. Tensions between slave-holders and abolitionists mounted, as the debate over slavery grew rancorous. An influx of new territory prompted Northern politicians to demand the new states remain free; in response, Southerners baldly threatened to secede from the Union. Only Henry Clay could keep the nation together.

At the Edge of the Precipice is historian Robert V. Remini's fascinating recounting of the Compromise of 1850, a titanic act of political will that only a skillful statesman like Clay could broker. Although the Compromise would collapse ten years later, plunging the nation into civil war, Clay's victory in 1850 ultimately saved the Union by giving the North and extra decade to industrialize and prepare.

A masterful narrative by an eminent historian, At the Edge of the Precipice also offers a timely reminder of the importance of bipartisanship in a bellicose age.

Robert V. Remini, historian of the U.S. House of Representatives, has been teaching and writing about American history for more than half a century. He has written more than twenty books, including the definitive three volume biography The Life of Andrew Jackson, which won the National Book Award (1984). His other books include biographies of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams, and Joseph Smith. His Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars won the Spur Award for best western nonfiction from the Western Writers of America. He lives in Wilmette, Illinois.

Information taken from Amazon.com

Southern Ladies Public Forums

2009-05-22T20:12:00.002-05:00

Recently a historian said at a conference that elite Southern ladies had few opportunities in the antebellum period to address a wider audience. Their platform she suggested was limited to church functions and thus they had little access to illustrate their committment to the slave institution. I beg to differ and offer just a few short things to counter this oft-imagine vision of elite Southern whtie women sitting around in silk gowns falling over men like Scarlett O'Hara.

Caroline Lee Hentz wrote about a dozen novels though her The Planter's Northern Bride
was her first to deal with slavery. Check it out here: http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/proslav/hentzhp.html

Additionally, the former First Lady, Mrs. Julia Gardiner Tyler wrote a scathing letter to the Duchess of Sutherland which was published in the Richmond Enquirer and subsequently in the Southern Literary Messenger. It can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/ptgcv7 Thousands of people received or read elsewhere the Messenger it was the South's most important literary publication. Former President John Tyler in 1860 had more than 70 enslaved laborers engaged in caring for his large family and growing corn and wheat on his plantation, Sherwood Forest (http://www.sherwoodforest.org)

Lastly, we cannot forget South Carolina slaveholder and slavery defender, Louisa McCord. Leigh Fought completed a bio on McCord a few years ago: http://press.umsystem.edu/spring2003/fought.htm. Both McCords wrote for Southern Literary Messenger. You can float through this link to find article written by David (d. 1855) and Louisa (d. 1879): http://tinyurl.com/rys6ec

I hope this helps to start us imaging elite white women in the context they existed in.

The Honourable John C. Calhoun leaves "The Great Triumvirate"

2009-04-02T00:00:00.005-05:00

John C. Calhoun, arguably South Carolina's most famous United States Senator and two time Vice President of the United States, died of tuberculosis on March 31, 1850, in a Washington boarding house (the Old Brick Capitol). Congress initially buried Calhoun's body in a public vault located in the Congressional Cemetery on April 2, 1850. Later in 1850, the family disinterred the body and moved it to St. Philip's Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where his illustrious stone can be viewed today. The following quotation is from "The Congressional Globe," April 6, 1850, page 626.

IN SENATE

TUESDAY, April 2, 1850.

The Senate met at twelve o’clock, for the purpose of attending the funeral obsequies of the Hon. John C. Calhoun, late a Senator in Congress from the State of South Carolina.

The galleries, and every avenue therto, were crowded with spectators, and hundreds left the doors unable to obtain admittance.

At twelve o’clock, the House of Representatives, preceded by its officers, entered the Chamber, and too seats assigned them.

Numerous officers of the army and navy, and many distinguished strangers, occupied sofas in the lobbies.

The Supreme Court of the United States entered the Chamber, and took seats at the left of the Vice President.

The President of the United States and the Cabinet soon followed; the President being conducted to a seat at the right of the Vice President.

The diplomatic corps, which was very fully represented, occupied seats near the centre of the Chamber.

At twenty minutes past twelve, the corpse was brought into the chamber, in charge of the Committee of Arrangements, and placed immediately in front of the Secretary’s desk. Several relatives and friends of the deceased, Senator Butler, and the South Carolina delegation of the House of Representatives, accompanied the corpse as mourners.

The Rev. C.M. Butler, Chaplain to the Senate, read the passage of Scripture, found in the 1^st Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 15^th chapter, beginning at the 20^th verse, to the end of the chapter.

Mr. B. then delivered a brief discourse from the words, in the 82d Psalm, 5^th and 7^th verses:

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

The address being ended, the Senate and audience left the Chamber, and formed in procession in the following order:

The Chaplains of both Houses of Congress.

Physicians who attended the deceased.

Committee of Arrangements:

Mr. Mason, Mr. Dodge, of Wis.,

Mr. Davis, of Miss., Mr. Dickinson,

Mr. Atchison, Mr. Greene.

Pall-bearers:

Mr. Mangum, Mr. Cass,

Mr. Clay, Mr. King,

Mr. Webster, Mr. Berrien.

The family and friends of the deceased.

The Senator and Representatives from the State of South Carolina, as mourners.

The Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate of the United States

The Senate of the United States, preceded by the Vice President of the United States and their Secretary.

The Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives

The House of Representatives, preceded by their Speaker and Clerk.

The President of the United Stated.

The Heads of Departments

The Chief-Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and its officers.

The Diplomatic Corps.

Judges of the United States.

Officers of the Executive Departments.

Officers of the Army and Navy.

The Mayor of Washington.

Citizens and Strangers.

The line having been formed, the procession moved to the Congressional Burying Ground, where the remains of the deceased were deposited, with the usual solemnities, in the receiving vault.

The Senate returned to their chamber, and adjourned.

To All My Constituents

2009-03-25T09:01:00.003-05:00

I apologize for the delay in writing something fresh and new for you all to read. Believe me, I will be posting something as soon as I have time to get my feet back on the ground. Thanks for following my Antebellum Politics blog.

"A Weak and Imbecile Man"

2009-01-27T22:10:00.003-06:00

According to the Senate's website, on this day in 1863, during a contentious Senate debate, Senator Willard Saulsbury (DE) referred to President Abraham Lincoln as a "weak and imbecile man." In the furor that followed these remarks, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, as presiding officer, ordered Saulsbury to take his seat. After further discussion and resistance by the Delaware senator, Hamlin instructed the Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. Saulsbury responded, "Let him do it at his expense," as he drew a pistol and threatened to shoot the surprised officer. Tempers quickly cooled, however, and Saulsbury subsequently apologized, prompting the Senate set aside a pending resolution of expulsion.

An Alabamian's Perspective on The Great Triumvirate in 1839

2009-01-23T20:38:00.009-06:00

Henry Washington Hilliard was born in 1808 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and attended South Carolina College (the University of South Carolina) in Columbia, graduating in 1826. After graduation, he moved to Athens, Georgia, thence to Alabama where he became a professor of literature at the University of Alabama, retaining this role form 1831-1834. He then decided to move to Montgomery and practice his chosen profession, law. He was a member of the Alabama State House of Representatives from 1826-1838 and was chosen as an Alabama member of the Whig National Convention that took place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1839. On his way to the convention, he stopped off in Washington, D.C., and for the first time, as a guest of Senator William Preston of South Carolina, stepped into visitor gallery encircling the great forum known as the United States Senate.

Hilliard gazed down from the gallery and immediately glanced at the great Daniel Webster, sitting quietly in his chair. Although Webster was not engaged in a great speech on the day Hilliard visited, he described, in detail, the honorable senator from Massachusetts, known by so many as "Black Dan."

He recalled to me the idea of classic grandeur; there was in him a blended dignity and power, most impressive; his head was magnificent, the arch of imagination rising above the brows, surrounded by the development of veneration resembling that of the bust of Plato; and as he sat in his place, surrounded by his peers, it seemed as if the whole weight of the government might rest securely on his broad shoulders. His large, dark eyes were full of expression, even in repose; the cheeks were square and strong; his dark hair and swarthy complexion heightened the impression of strength which his whole person made upon me as I saw him for the first time, an impression that was deepened when he rose to his feet and walked the floor of the Senate-chamber. There was in his appearance something leonine. He was in full dress; he never neglected this. when he delivered his great speech in reply to Hayne, it is known that he wore a dress-coat of dark blue cloth with gilt buttons, buff vest, and white cravat, so that, some one has said, he displayed the colors of the Revolution.

This was also the first day Hilliard looked upon the "Great Pacificator," Henry Clay of Kentucky. He stated that Clay was unlike Webster due to "his light complexion, blue eyes, and animated manner." Hilliard goes on to describe the senator's physical appearance while watching from the gallery.

His appearance was not less intellectual that that of the other great statesman; his forehead was high and finely proportioned, and his features expressed intellect, ardor, and courage; his nose and mouth were large, and of the Roman Cast. when he rose to speak, standing over six feet in height, spare and vigorous, his appearance was most commanding; and certainly with his singularly clear, sonorous, and musical voice, that rose and fell with perfect cadence, one felt that never in ancient or modern assemblies had a greater master of popular thought and passion stood in the midst of men. He was attentive in dress, and when I saw him for the first time he wore a dress-coat of brown broadcloth, a heavy black cravat, and the collar of his shirt was of the largest style, touching his ears.

Hilliard eyes next rested upon the favored son of the South, the "Cast Iron Man," John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The young Hillard previously saw Calhoun, during his vice presidency, while a student at South Carolina College. The Alabamian was no less impressed by the appearance of the South Carolina senator during his 1839 visit to the senate.

He stood quite six feet in height, spare, but vigorous and erect, the impersonation of intellectual grandeur; his face was Grecian, the brow square, and the forehead finely developed, from which the thick hair was brushed upward; the mouth resolute; and the chin, in its shape and firmness giving an expression of purpose and determination, recalled the but of Caesar; his eyes, dark gray, were full of fire, and when he was animated blazed with the ardor of his great soul. Mr. Calhoun was habitually dressed in black, and in the Senate-chamber, at all times, wore a morning costume.

Hilliard became an Alabama elector in 1840, supporting Henry Clay as the Whig nominee for president. Unfortunately, Clay's supporters did not get their candidate chosen. Instead, William Henry Harrison (W-OH) won the presidential nomination, while John Tyler (W-VA) won the vice presidential nomination. Needless to say, Clay was livid and Hilliard expressed this in his writings. After meeting with Senator Preston, Secretary of State Webster, and President Tyler, Henry Hilliard received the appointment as Charge de Affaires to Belgium, a post he held from 1842-1844. Upon his return to Alabama, Hillard was immediately elected as a Whig to the Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth, and Thirty-first Congresses (1845-1851), but was not a candidate for reelection in 1850, that election being won by another Whig, James Abercrombie. Hilliard became an elector on the National American ticket in 1856. Although not a firm supporter of Southern secession, he reluctantly followed his state out of the Union in 1861 and received a commission as brigadier general during the Civil War. Hilliard raised a legion of infantry, cavalry, and artillery but never actively commanded these troops in battle. In 1876, he was an unsuccessful Republican candidate to the Forty-fifth Congress. However, he did serve the United States as Minister to Brazil from 1877-1881. Hilliard died in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1892 and was buried in Oakwood Cemetery in Montgomery, Alabama.

The quotations come from pages 2-4 of Henry Washington Hilliard's book, Politics and Pen Pictures (1892).

"Air and Simple Gifts" by John Williams

2009-01-20T12:16:00.009-06:00

This is a wonderful song written for today's inauguration...It is great!!! God Bless America!!! Our Federal Union, It Must Be Preserved!!!!!!

H-SHEAR on Howe

2009-01-19T07:44:00.003-06:00

In case you are not a memeber of H-SHEAR -- the H Net forum for historians of the early republic -- please take the time to register. The recent discussion of Howe's What Hath God Wrought was excellent and is still ongoing. Link to it here http://www.h-net.org/~shear/

Decorum in the House, or Lack Thereof....

2009-01-09T14:11:00.013-06:00

In Senator Thomas Hart Benton's (D-MO) book, Thirty Years' View, he responded to what he believed was an error in Alexis de Tocqueville's view of why the House of Representatives was a less capable body than the Senate. Benton quotes de Tocqueville as saying:

On entering the House of Representatives at Washington, one is struck with the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. The eye frequently does not discover a man of celebrity within its walls. Its members are almost all obscure individuals, whose names present no associations to the mind; they are mosty village lawyers, men in trade, or even persons belonging to the lower classes of society. In a country in which education is very general, it is said that the representatives of the people do not always know how to write correctly. At a few yards' distance from this spot is the door of the Senate, which contains within a small space a large proportion of the celebrated men in America. Scarcely an individual is to be found in it, who does not recall the idea of an active and illustrious career. The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguised generals, wise magistrates, and statesment of note, whose language would at all times do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe. What the, is the cause of this strange contrast? and why are the most able citizens to be found in the one assembly rather than in the other? wy is the former body remarkable for its vulgarity, and its poverty of talent, whilst the latter seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and of sound judgment? Both of these assemblies eminate from the people. From what cause, then, does so startling a difference arise? Teh only reason which appears to me adequately to account for it is, that the House of Representatives. is elected by the populace directly, and that of the Senate is elected by the indirect application of universal suffrage; but this transmission of the popular authority through an assembly of chosen men operates an important change in it, by refining its discretion and improving the forms which it adopts. Men who are chosen in this manner accurately represent the majority of the nation which governs them; but they represent the elevated thoughts which are current in the community, the generous propensities which prompt its nobler actions, rather than the petty passions witch disturb, or the vices which disgrace it. The time may be already anticipated as which the American republics will be obliged to introduce the plan of election by an elected body more frequently into their system of representation, or they will incur no small risk or perishing miserably among the shoals of democracy--Chapter 8 (205).

Of course, Benton stated that de Toqueville made an error because the Frenchmen saw the houses as "two different order of beings-different classes-a higher class and a lower class." The senator also expressed that "the Senate is almost entirely made up out of the House!" If Monsieur de Toqueville looked at the House some years prior, he would have witnessed almost all of the senators "to whom his exclusive praise is directed" sitting in the House (206).

Unfortunately, the House bashing does not stop at Alexis de Tocqueville's remarks. Charles Dickens visited the United States Capital in the 1840s and wrote the following passage concerning the House in his American Notes for General Circulation:

On my initiatory visit to the House of Representatives they divided against a decision of the Chair; but the Chair won. The second time I went, the member who was speaking, being interrupted by a laugh, mimicked it, as one child would in quarrelling with another, and added, 'that he would make honourable gentlemen opposite, sing out a little more on the other side of their mouths presently.' But interruptions are rare; the Speaker usually being heard in silence. There are more quarrels than with us , and more threatenings than gentlemen are accustomed to exchange in any civilised society of which we have record: but farm-yard imitations have not as yet been imported from the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

It is somewhat remarkable too, at first, to say the least, to see so many honourable members with swelled faces; and it is scarcely less remarkable to discover that this appearance is caused by the quantity of tobacco they contrive to stow within the hollow of the cheek. It is strange enough too, to see an honourable gentleman leaning back in his tilted chair with his legs on the desk before him, sharpening a convenient "plug" with his pen knife, and when it is quite ready for use, shooting the old one from his mouth, as from a popgun, and clapping the new one in its place.

I was surprised to observe that even steady old chewers of great experience, are not always good marksmen, which has rather inclined me to doubt that general proficiency with the rifle, of which we have heard so much in England. Several gentlemen called upon me who, in the course of conversation, frequently missed the spittoon at five paces; and one (but he was certainly short-sighted) mistook the closed sash for the open window, at three (53).

Frances Trollope, a British novelist, visited the United States ca. 1827. Upon her return to England, she had her American writings published under the title Domestic manners of the Americans (1832). On one of her many visits to the House chamber she wrote about the manners concerning the House members versus those she found in the Senate.

...I could only follow one or two of the orators, whose voices were peculiarly loud the and clear. This made it really a labour to listen; but the extreme beauty of the chamber was of itself a reason for going again and again. It was however, really mortifying to see this splendid hall, fitted up in so stately and sumptuous a manner, filled with men sitting in the most unseemly attitudes, a large majority with their hats on, and nearly all spitting to an excess that decency forbids me to describe. Among the crowd who must be included in this description, a few were distinguished by not wearing their hats, and by sitting on their chairs like other human beings, without throwing their legs above their heads. Whenever I inquired the name of one of these exceptions, I was told that it was Mr. This, or Mr. That, of Virginia.
The Senate Chamber is like the Hall of congress, a semicircle, but of very much smaller dimensions. It is most elegantly fitted up, and what is better still, the senators, generally speaking, look like gentlemen. They do not wear their hats, and the activity of youth being happily passed, they do not toss their heels above their heads. I would I could add they do not spit; but alas! "I have an oath in heaven," and my not write an untruth (184-85).

American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

2008-12-23T00:26:00.004-06:00

For those readers who have not endeavored to pick up a copy of Jon Meacham's new book, American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, I encourage you to go out and purchase a copy or check one out from your local library. Meacham brings Jackson's White House years to life! Much of the books first chapters are spent discussing the Eaton Affair, which is very interesting. He also delves into Jackson being the first "people's" president and how that effected Congress then and how it shaped the power of the executive today. This is not your typical mundane Jackson biography. It is well written and is a very good read. I highly encourage you to read Meacham's work. Once I started reading, I could not put it down!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jon Meacham

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

A Petti Affair in Washington

2008-12-15T20:11:00.015-06:00

Margaret O'Neale Eaton's marriage to Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War, John Henry Eaton, was the first major sexual scandal surrounding an American Executive.

The seventeen year old Margaret O'Neale married thirty-nine year old John Timberlake, a purser in the United States Navy, in 1816, and in 1818, Margaret was introduced to an up and coming young Tennessee Senator by the name of John Henry Eaton. John was the youngest United States Senator to ever be elected, being only twenty-eight years old upon taking the oath of office. Senator Eaton was boarding at at small tavern in Washington known as the "Franklin House" owned by Margaret's father.

It was during his stay here that John Timberlake and John Eaton were first acquainted. At some point Senator Eaton found out about Timberlake's rising financial debts. Senator Eaton vehemently tried to assist Timberlake by presenting petitions in Congress. The first petition brought before the Senate was by the Hon. Thomas Hill Williams of Mississippi on December 28,1818, presumably concocted by Eaton himself but presented by Williams. The petition was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs but was tabled. Senator Eaton brought the next petition on March 1, 1820, and it was referred to the same committee and was withdrawn before the close of the session. After several other petitions, the claims to help recover Timberlake's debts were severally denied.

John Timberlake was forced back to sea due to being unable to recover his debts and was at sea when he reportedly committed suicide, presumably due to his defrauding the United States government to cover up debts incurred by his wife. The scuttlebutt around Washington was that Margaret Timberlake was actively demonstrating a rumor concerning her sexual habits by having an illicit relationship with Senator John H. Eaton. The rumor abounded when, on January 1, 1829, John H. Eaton and Margaret O'Neale Timberlake married. Prior to their nuptials, John Eaton approached his long time friend and confidant, the newly elected President of the United States, Andrew Jackson and asked his opinion on the matter of marriage. The president-elect gave the couple his blessing, which was exactly what Eaton wanted to hear. Louis McLane, a Senator from Delaware and future Secretary of the Treasury under Jackson, quipped, "Eaton has just married his mistress and the mistress of eleven doz.others" (McLane to James A. Bayard, February 19,1829, Bayard Papers, L.C.)...to be continued...

Has Your Congressman Ever Flashed??--Campaigning At Its Best!

2008-12-10T10:49:00.005-06:00

This story has roots in the Compensation Act of 1816. The United States Congress began to believe its $6.00 per diem salary was inadequate and needed changing. Yeah, talk about a salary grab!! Well, I can kind of understand since there had been no pay increase since 1789, and by 1816, the average cost of living had doubled. In 1815, a House resolution to inquire about raising the salary was promptly defeated by a vote of 99-8.

This changed on March 4, 1816, when Congressman Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky proposed Congress receive a salary instead of a per diem rate. He said it would be “nothing extravagant, nothing prodigal.” Around March 11, the House voted 81-67 to pay themselves a salary of $1500 instead of the $6.00 per diem. On March 14, the Senate passed the bill 21-11, and President Madison signed it into law on March 19, 1816.

Unfortunately for these elected officials, the populace did not necessarily agree with this “salary grab” as it was being called. Nearly two-thirds of the Fourteenth Congress was not reelected; of the 81 House members who voted for the salary increase, only 15 were returned to serve in the Fifteenth Congress. One of those 15 members was the Honorable Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Speaker of the House.

As the story goes, while out campaigning for his reelection to the House, Henry Clay came upon an old hunter who was very much opposed to Congress’ raise.

“Have you a good rifle, my friend?” asked Mr. Clay.

“Yes.”

“Does it flash?”

“Once only,” he replied.

“What did you do with it-throw it away?”

“No, I picked the flint, tried it again, and brought down the game.”

“Have I ever flashed but on the compensation bill?”

“No.”

“Will you throw me away?”

“No, no.” exclaimed the hunter, with enthusiasm, nearly overpowered by his feelings.

“I will pick the flint, and try you again!” (Epes Sargent’s 1844 Life and Public Services of Henry Clay)

Needless to say, Congress repealed the Compensation Act during its next session and decided on an $8.00 per diem and $8.00 for every twenty miles traveled.

Times, They Are a Changing...

2008-12-08T22:10:00.000-06:00

Hello everyone,

I suppose you have noticed at this point that the blog title has changed. I decided that in addition to politics, we needed to delve into a little more of what Mr. Dabney alluded to in his post; the secession convention and the peculiar institution that brought our nation to the brink of war. As you know, President Andrew Jackson spoke the words, "Our Federal Union, it must be preserved" during the nullification crisis in the early 1830s. We must look deeper into the drive behind the political leanings in both the North and the South; this means plantation culture and industrialization must be explored as well. Thanks for being patient as I refine the direction of this blog.

As an aside, I also had a relative, Simpson Bobo from Spartanburg District, South Carolina, who served as a representative to the secession convention that met in Charleston on December 20, 1860. the ordinance passed passed unanimously, 169-0

Dinwiddie County's Representative to the Secession Convention and one of my (white) ancestors

2008-12-08T09:17:00.001-06:00

As promised, Chris, I am posting a little blurb about one of my (white) ancestors; James Boisseau, Jr. Boisseau was born June 10th 1822. He was a son of James Boisseau, a merchant of Petersburg, and Jane Turner. His father died when James, Jr. was two and Boisseau’s mother, Jane died when her son was five. Despite being born in Petersburg he spent most of his life in Dinwiddie County. He attended the College of William and Mary beginning in 1839 and from which he graduated in 1842.

He bought a farm, “Cedar Level” (and now the location of the new Dinwiddie County High School, which preserved the Boisseau family cemetery located on the property) which is south of Five Forks. He studied law at the University of Virginia and graduated in 1851.

The antebellum period found James Boisseau also busy in politics. He served as the county’s Commissioner of the Revenue, 1848-49 and 1850; the Commonwealth attorney 1852-53-54-55 and '56; Justice of the Peace, and Presiding Justice in 1860; and a Member of the State legislature in 1857-58.
By 1860, he owned a farm and was an attorney. His real property valued at $2000 and his personal property at $12,000. He owned nine male slaves and six female slaves. He also hired one male slave in 1860 from a Petersburg resident. Nine of the enslaved people on Boisseau’s farm in 1860 were between the ages of 2 months old and 9 years old. Seven of his slaves were listed as mulattos. Boisseau married Martha Elizabeth Cousins, daughter of Capt. William Henry Cousins (veteran of the War of 1812) of Dinwiddie on February 29, 1860. She was 24 at the time of the census.

Perhaps Boisseau’s greatest political service was as Dinwiddie County’s representative to the 1861 Secession Convention. Boisseau voted for secession on April 4th 1861; however this vote for secession was defeated 80-45. Boisseau voted for secession again on April 17, 1861, which this time passed 88 for secession and 55 against. Boisseau’s son, Sterling later noted that his father was a corporal in the Confederate army in Capt. B.J. Epes, Company. He was captured a short time before the surrender of Lee.

In the post-war years he served as the first judge of Dinwiddie County. The 1870 census lists him as 47 and the Judge of the County whose real estate was worth $2200 and his personal property decreased to just $100 (hey, that’s what happens when much of the antebellum personal property was evaluated in terms of the humans who took control of their lives in the aftermath of the war). His wife, familiarly called Betty on the census, was 34 and by then the mother of three children: Sterling (age 7 on the census), Ada Cousins (age 6 on the census), and Emma Robinson (age 1 on the census). The couple had a final son, Preston (who by the 1880 census was 7, remembering that the census listed children according to age on June 1, 1880, Preston must have been conceived in the final months of his father’s life), before James Boisseau Jr. died on Nov. 29th 1872.

FYI: I continue to work on the Boisseau side of my family so I have not pinpointed exactly when this race mixing occurred though I think it began long before James Boisseau, Jr. This of course, was not something that prominent slaveholders wrote down in their family bible so it will be daunting but I'll keep working.

Alabama's 3rd Congressional District

2008-12-04T15:58:00.001-06:00

So, I have been interested in seeing who represented my current district during the Antebellum Period, and I felt I just had to share what I found. Two pretty imposing figures, one literal, represented Alabama's 3rd Congressional District.

Dixon Hall Lewis represented the district from 1829-1833 and again from 1841-1844 (he represented the 4th Congressional District from 1833-1841). In case some of you are not familiar with Congressman (later Senator) Lewis, he was, a strikingly obese man, weighting near 500 pounds. A specially constructed seat was made for Lewis, and his carriage was outfitted with heavy suspension springs. As an interesting aside, Lewis' colleagues stated that Alabama literally had the largest representation of any state in the U.S. Congress.

William Lowndes Yancey represented the district from 1844-1846. Now I don't believe I need to introduce this Fire-eater to you all, but if you are at all interested in finding out more about Congressman Yancey, Eric Walther's William Lowndes Yancey: The Coming of the Civil War is a very good book.

I would be very interested in knowing some of the famous Antebellum politicians from your own congressional districts.

Politics on a Grand Scale

2008-11-25T13:58:00.000-06:00

As you may have noticed, I placed George Bingham's painting, Stump Speaking(1853-54), in the upper left hand corner of this blog. I did this to remind me that this blog is as important in distributing information concerning town and county politics as it is in distributing national political information. Although there is some "stumping" that occurs today, it must have been very intriguing to sit and listen to two political opponents practice their oratorical skills, or lack thereof, in front of a vast audience.

How do politicians get their constituents votes today? When I vote, I have to show valid identification, be checked off on a registration sheet, sign a book, receive my ballot, mark my ballot, and finally, place it in the monstrosity of a ballot counting machine. This was not the case in the Antebellum Period. For example, Bingham's painting, The County Election (1851-52), shows several voting actions we would consider illegal or oddities today.

John Weinberg, writes that "balloting, which in those days was not secret, proceeds on the courthouse porch. The process was particularly open to corruption, since it was easy to eavesdrop and thereby intimidate voters or verify if bribes had been effective. A man in red swears on the Bible that he has not previously voted in the election, an action which might establish the solemnity of the occasion if not for the general raucousness of the assembled crowd. Drunkenness is suggested by the broadly smiling man in the foreground who holds his glass up to be filled with hard cider--a favorite tool for attracting voters to a candidate's side. Liquor seems to have completely overwhelmed another man, who is literally dragged to the polls to cast a ballot. This figure, with bowed head and limp limbs, recalls images of Christ being taken down from the cross. But here religious connotations are erased, and the suggestion of death may be an allusion to the practice of getting votes from the rolls of the dead. Another indication of illegality is the battered fellow sitting on a bench to the right, a wooden plank at his feet. His sorry condition may suggest physical coercion or a political argument that has taken a violent turn. The power of both money and chance is symbolized by the toss of a coin directly below the swearing-in. As if to further undermine the gravity of the occasion, two small boys play mumble-the-peg in the foreground."

Welcome

2008-11-24T17:23:00.000-06:00

I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome everyone to my newly created blog. My interest in Antebellum politics has caused me to create this blog specifically for that purpose. As you will notice, many of the authors, or "men of good standing" as I have labeled them, come to us from our popular blog on the Confederate Army of Tennessee. I believe these two blogs will be able to open up our eyes to the many connections between not only political rivalries prior to the Civil War but how those rivalries between men were transposed into this era of combat.

I include in this post a portion of Isaac Bassett's memories of Washington, D.C. On December 5, 1831, 12-year-old Isaac Bassett was appointed a page in the U.S. Senate. Thus began a career that spanned more than six notable decades in the history of the institution and the nation.

As far back as I can remember all around the Capitol was a perfect wilderness. Where the Botanical Garden now stands, I have often caught fish—it was called Tiber Crick—and all around it was marshy, low ground. Where the Baltimore Depot is, I have killed many a reedbird, blackbird, and robin. Where I now reside was a cornfield—with in one square of the Capitol (just think of that). Between the Capitol and the president’s house there was very few houses. Then there was not a single pavement in the city, gravel walks were the best we could get, and not a lamp to guide the traveler.

Now besides a continuous pavement from Georgetown to the Navy Yard, it is also lighted by gas. The water from the Great Falls of the Potomac has been brought down and diffused throughout the city though there was a population of only 3,000, the boardinghouse keepers had to send to Georgetown and Alexandria for their marketing.

The city of Washington has been rebuilt, its own father would not know it now, transformed into a village to a city of palaces. Washington is in a fair way to become a city of statues. A great many senators and members of the House now build their own houses. The national capital is now an attractive city. [3A1-3A3]